not logged in
| Yet again | |
Posted by:  |
rockfenris2005 01:56 am UTC 03/03/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Just a notice - Pudding 01:40 am UTC 03/03/07 |
You just can't STAND that I made the effort, can't you? You can't stand that I got off my ass and expressed my contributions to the community. That's all I've done and I haven't been acknowledged for it once. The only person who acknowledged me is Jacqueline who is always encouraging me, and placed the link to my site on the links section of this website. I wouldn't just do "The Confidence Man" as a favour toward Steinman, which Smeghead so brilliantly did (and it must be commended whatever the result. It also mustn't be forgotten when he is attacked for certain views. I know it has been in the past) I was doing it for Ray as well. I don't see him as anyone important at all. I see him on the same level as anyone else, a person who wrote a great piece of work that deserved to be exposed in 1975 before Papp betrayed him. It deserves to be exposed now, it's not my fault that three theatre companies changed my mind AND YET fuckheads like you and Tremorlor turn it back to me, making me out to be some negative fuck who can't do anything right. Pudding, I acknowledged your blog and your efforts on your site. I acknowledge everything you've done for the Steinman community. And yet you sit up on your high horse and refuse to acknowledge my contributions, or you turn them around and frown at me as if I'm some meaningless negative person. I gave the MP3 remaster to two people. It's not my fault they betrayed my strict confidence in giving it to you. I wanted them to hear the song to get a second opinion on what it was like. I strictly said not to bring it into the community until at least Jim and Ray were happy. I asked Jim, he did not reply. I asked Ray, he did not reply. I appreciate what you've done, on the whole, but you were not supposed to do it. And why the FUCK should I feel O.K. with what JD did that time? She knows I'm over it and it was never even personal anyway. If your contributions are absolutely fuck-all acknowledged then you'd be thrilled too to get the letter I got from Jim. It puts me in a position where my contributions can be equally acknowledged as everyone else's are. It must be an adult thing. They must just think that only mature-aged adults can successfully contribute to the Steinman community and f!ck any youths when, really, they should be commended in having such brilliant tastes at this age. I confess myself disappointed. And you, of course, will find anyway to paint me in a negative light. I don't know why, I can't explain it. I never had bad intentions ONCE All I have tried to do is HELP R.L. > Just some musings. > > I'm a believer that everything and anything Jim Steinman > related should be shared, that's why I started the blog in > the first place. > > You've been bragging left right and centre about PoP for > some time, making out your relationship with Ray is > something more than what it clearly is not. Oneupmanship > bollocks pisses me off. > > You sent me the file in exchange for the countless other > files I sent you. Yes you did ask me not to mention the > file, but how many others did you do the same with? One > week after you sent me the file I was offered it by > someone who I didn't really know. So it seems you've been > spreading your Privates all over the place. > > No I didn't credit you as the source, but since you want > credit, I've just edited the blog. > > I don't give a shit what Ray thinks. I don't know the > bloke, been told he's a little nutty, but I'm sure by the > mainly 'positive' response to the clip, he'll not be too > pissed. Send him my email address nzpudding@gmail.com > > I'm looking forward to seeing what Jacqueline says or > does. Wasn't it not long ago you went all spastic with her > because she posted something Jim wrote but you didn't get > any credit? Seems to be some running theme here with you. > > Like I said earlier, I'm not one for exclusivity and > believe that everything and anything Jim Steinman related > should be shared. > > Pud | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Oh and Pudding... - rockfenris2005 02:26 am UTC 03/03/07 |
| Next: | re: Yet again - Pudding 02:13 am UTC 03/03/07 |
| Thread: |
|